Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimJast
First of all, your first quoted above statement isn't true since I answered your questions and if you don't understand something in the answers then you should ask about it rather than to repeat the questions.
|
Ah yes, the old "I'm not wrong, you just didn't understand what I said" ploy. No, there wasn't anything in your answer that I didn't understand. Your answers were just plain wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimJast
This way you might start understanding what it is all about and why your ideas about conservation of energy in curved spacetime are ATM ideas.
|
Are you serious? Mainstream science holds that yes, we live in curved spacetime and that energy is conserved globally. Your accusation of conservation of energy in curved spacetime as an ATM idea is plain wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimJast
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CodeSlinger
Poynting's Theorem, which is where the Poynting vector appears, says nothing of the sort. The theorem establishes conservation of energy for EM fields. It has nothing to do with curved spacetime.
|
This doesn't sound promissing since apparently you aren't aware of the fact that we all live in a curved spacetime (otherwise there wouldn't be any gravitation where we live) and so the physics to be accurate has to work in a curved spacetime without even mentioning it. |
That's precisely my point. Poynting's Theorem establishes conservation of energy for EM fields,
and makes no mention of an exception in curved spacetime, which means the result is valid in curved spacetime. So your attempt to invoke the Poynting vector as proof that energy is not conserved in curved spacetime is plain wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimJast
Second, your questions aren't about "Einstein's universe" that I hoped to discuss in this thread but they are your private ATM questions on a different subject (and so your action is called here "highjacking the thread" and is a bannable offense).
|
My questions are about the claims you have made in support of your ATM ideas, and as such, are indeed relevant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimJast
Third, I'm not interested very much in discussing your ATM ideas on curved manifolds and Noether theorem, that you don't understand.
|
No, it is you who have shown an incorrect or ATM understanding of Noether's theorem and such.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimJast
Fourth, wikipedia does not represent the mainstream view. By design it expresses the opinion of majority (decided by editors through concensus) in hope that it turns out to be the mainstream opinion. In most cases it is unless about things that people have strong opinions about.
|
Yes, I'm aware of Wikipedia's various faults. However, I believe its articles on Noether's and Poynting's theorems are accurate representations of mainstream science. I'll get to this in a second.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimJast
Fifth, about your questions: let specify in sufficient detail what you didn't understand in my last response. When I know what you don't understand I may explain it to you better. Repeating the same thing twice without saying what part you don't understand makes no sense.
I propose to skip [the third] question as irrelevant. E.g. all astronomers opposed Copernicus (one guy) because of lack of paralax and yet it turned out that they were wrong and paralax was simply too small to be observed. So it turns out (and you must know that) that the truth can't be decided by concensus (and that's why wikipedia isn't a reliable source). Let's rather limit our discussion to relevant issues for this thread which is only Einstein's universe.
|
I believe the third question is quite relevant, as you made your original claim as support for your ATM idea that conservation of energy is incompatible with an expanding universe. You made the claim that
"many physicists happen to doubt it because of the consevation of energy". Now the burden of proof is on you to show your evidence for this claim, or withdraw it.
Before I get to the questions, I would like to point you to the
rules of the board, which includes the following:
Quote:
13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories
If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.
|
(bold mine)
Note that it does not say ATM proponents may pick and choose which questions to answer;
all direct questions must be answered.
As I said earlier, it wasn't that I didn't understand your previous answers. They were simply wrong. So, once again, here are my
direct questions for you:
1. Please show us,
mathematically, why energy cannot be conserved in an expanding universe.
2. Please show us,
mathematically, why conservation of energy necessarily implies a stationary universe.
3. Which
physicists oppose Big Bang because of conservation of energy? So far you have only one who may or may not fit that description. Needless to say, "one" != "many".
To which I will also add:
4. If Wikipedia's description of Noether's theorem is incorrect, please cite relevant
scientific sources (published papers, journal articles, textbooks, etc.) that refutes Wikipedia's description and/or confirms your description of Noether's theorem.
5. If Wikipedia's description of Poynting's theorem is incorrect, please cite relevant
scientific sources (published papers, journal articles, textbooks, etc.) that refutes Wikipedia's description and/or confirms your description of Poynting's theorem.